Metagame1v1 Metagame Discussion

Go to page

Go to page

Quickban. Too over-centralizing for a style of play like 1v1. It limits what moves one can use, and goes far and beyond promoting a purely bulky offense metagame, putting all types of stall and hyper-offense 6 feet under. OHKO-ing a dynamaxed bulky offense pokemon is a tall feat to ask, even for hyper-offense, and surviving a dynamax hit when you cannot afford to dynamax or else lose your stalling moves is an even taller feat.

The metagame needs stall, bulky offense, hyper-offense, and everything in between in order to thrive. With dynamax, it'll just stagnate as the same pokemon appear over and over, doing the exact same things.

AAAAAAA

I wholeheartedly don't believe it should be a mechanic of the game that is to blame for a meta becoming unfavorable in the eyes of the people. It is very important for people to understand that Dynamaxing isn't a tangible element that you can simply remove like an individual pokemon or item or whatever, but rather the entire concept of something, akin to all abilities, all items, all moves, etc. Removing it would essentially be removing part of what makes a pokemon... a pokemon.

Gen 1 -> Gen 2: Items and Spikes enter the metagame, punishing switchins while enabling pokemon to be sustainable at the same time.
Gen 2 -> Gen 3: Abilities and Natures enter the metagame and suddenly pokemon are no longer capable of having 252 in all 6 stats.
Gen 3 -> Gen 4: The Physical/Special split changes dozens of offensive pokemon, in addition to gamechanging new hazards + removal.
Gen 4 -> Gen 5: Hidden Abilities make dozens of pokemon more viable, in addition to causing the infamous weather wars.
Gen 5 -> Gen 6: Mega Evolutions make a new group of viable pokemon while weathers were nerfed to 5/8 turns.
Gen 6 -> Gen 7: Z-Moves further enable hundreds of pokemon to perform better by means of technique.

Every generation has had some drastic new mechanic that shifted people's basic understanding of competitive pokemon, in addition to multiple incredibly significant elements that introduced major changes to the way that competitive pokemon was played, from Stealth Rock to Scald to Sticky Web and so forth. Stealth Rock, in particular, had a lot of discussion behind it; many points of which I absolutely believe could be applied to the discussion of Dynamaxing, so I spent a lot of time reading through these threads so that you don't have to! (Though you probably still should)

There are a handful of ideologies that can be gleamed from all of these threads and posts that should absolutely be taken into account when considering what constitutes a ban for a pokemon vs any tool used by pokemon:

1. Evaluations cannot come without evidence of the claims made.

This means something like usage stats, and just players in general trying to wrap their minds around understanding what the best strategies in the metagame currently are before attempting to make any significant decisions beyond obvious ones like banning the cover legendaries at the start of the generation.

The amount of "centralization" something forces upon the meta will always be subjectively drawn by whoever you ask, though it should always at least require the consideration of usage stats to visibly observe with certainty that something is currently dominating the metagame, as otherwise, the argument simply boils down to hearsay from the likes of people who "never had trouble with X", on the consideration that they always happened to be using counters to X, whether knowingly or not.

As an example, consider the case of Kyurem-Black, wherein its presence mandated pokemon to run what would nowadays be considered bad sets in order to beat it; the likes of fast + physically defensive Charizard-X + Y, Choice Specs / Fairium physically defensive Primarina + Tapu Fini, etc. With Kyurem-Black gone, the usage of these spreads and items died down, making it evident that Kyurem-Black was a major part of why these bad sets were considered "necessary". It is this kind of observable change with banned aspects that we should be looking for and even predicting will happen given that the hypothetical X element is banned, and whether or not the changes forced upon X's victims are damning enough to warrant a ban.

2. In the debate of creating a "better" metagame as opposed to a "pure" metagame, the latter is less subjective.

A very important argument that was prominent in almost all of the Stealth Rock discussion was coming to the conclusion of whether it is a "good" metagame or a "pure" metagame that we should strive for, with the difference between the two being that a "pure" metagame strives to maintain as many of the elements provided while only removing the most egregious cases of something being broken, uncompetitive, or unhealthy, while a "good" metagame is one that is ultimately subjectively agreed upon by a majority of people to be better than what it was previously, even if it means removing something that wasn't necessarily problematic towards the greater metagame.

The wording of the general tiering policy framework puts forth notions that "pure" metagames are preferred, though it doesn't necessarily state why that is the case. A few of the posts I linked above argue that this method of handling metas is ideal on account of the fact that banning with the intention of producing a "good" or "better" or "improved" metagame is entirely subjective and may very well lend to the idea that anything can be suspected given enough of an outcry from the community, rather than the provision of any kind of evidence that something truly needs to be removed.

3. Suspect tests and discussions are a means to evaluating why the suspected element was or should be removed.

With the understanding set forth by point 2 that only something egregiously harmful to the metagame deserves to be removed, the task of demonstrating those egregious characteristics falls to the side attempting to instigate change within the metagame.

Demonstrating something as an element that deserves to be banned is not simply something that can be done by show of support when someone makes a post that you agree with, but rather with rigid evidence that a conclusion can be drawn from.

4. The point of suspect tests and bans is ultimately to lower the number of broken, uncompetitive, and/or unhealthy elements present within the metagame.

With a hypothetical Dynamax suspect, it'd be hard to discern qualities that warrant a clear need for suspect, as the main thing we'd be seeing is that the metagame is clearly different without it. Not more balanced, but different. There is no certainty that a no-dynamax metagame would even have less broken aspects than the one we have now. Everything that even comes close to being broken in this meta turns out to be bugged, on account of ingame mechanics functioning differently from how they're implemented on PS.

5. An alternative metagame is a bad idea.

With point 4 in mind, an alternative metagame without Dynamax seems like a clear way to discern whether or not the meta would really balance out without it. The problem with this notion is outlined in a few of the links above, regarding the possibility of splitting the community we have down the middle between those who prefer the meta with Dynamax and those who prefer the meta without it.

While it does sound idealistic to see how a metagame without Dynamax would play out, that is solely caving in to the idea that there is a problem with Dynamax to begin with, which, if there were, then it should be very clearly discernible by means of evidence.

6. Discerning something as a problem means that there has to be a problem in the metagame.

If Dynamax were truly the source of the metagame being broken, uncompetitive, or unhealthy, then there already should have been suspect-worthy pokemon that got to where they were because of their abuse of Dynamax.

Not only do there need to be Pokemon in general that are bannable solely because of their abuse of Dynamax, just about every pokemon needs to be capable of sweeping, haxing, or otherwise creating an unfavorable scenario for a large majority of opponents, or at least large enough a group to be deemed as overcentralizing.

7. Discerning problems is a matter of skill.

The tiering policy framework does a sufficient job at explaining what skillful play is, on a teambuilding and battling level. With the framework's definition in mind, it comes to us to determine whether or not Dynamax as a mechanic contradicts any part of it, and by how much it does so.

When doing this, it is important to differentiate when something is simply a change to how skillful play is carried out, as opposed to when skillful play is actually being punished in the face of unskillful play.

An example of a change to skillful play would be the transfer from gen 3 to gen 4, where the newfound presence of Stealth Rock effectively mandated that teams have a defogger or spinner in order to clear them out.

An example of skillful play being punished by unskillful play is the use of evasion boosting / accuracy dropping to avoid otherwise game-ending attacks, thus placing the result of the game in the hands of RNG.

Ultimately, Dynamax is a generation-defining feature of the Sword and Shield metagame, much like Stealth Rock was for Diamond and Pearl, Hidden Abilities for Black and White, Mega Evolution for X and Y, and so forth. Removing it would effectively be forfeiting the identity as a Gen 8 metagame and molding it into an OM of itself, rather than abiding by the standards set in place by the new generation.

girl oo

I wholeheartedly don't believe it should be a mechanic of the game that is to blame for a meta becoming unfavorable in the eyes of the people. It is very important for people to understand that Dynamaxing isn't a tangible element that you can simply remove like an individual pokemon or item or whatever, but rather the entire concept of something, akin to all abilities, all items, all moves, etc. Removing it would essentially be removing part of what makes a pokemon... a pokemon.

Dynamax is a mechanic that's able to be utilized during a game but not during teambuilding. While it's true that it's not akin to banning an individual Pokemon, it's also true that it's much more comparable to mechanics such as switching (which is a mechanic that can't be utilized in 1v1 and doesn't make Pokemon in 1v1 any less of Pokemon). That said, you're correct in saying that it's not so simple as banning a move. In fact, it's more of a clause than a ban. However, I think that in the case of dynamax in 1v1, we have ample reason to necessitate a dynamax clause.

Let's start with my claims:
A) The coexistence of dynamax and Substitute turns a huge number of matchups into 50/50s.
B) Non-dynamaxed Pokemon simply can't compete dynamaxed and there are only 19 max moves of which most Pokemon get a good variety. Because of this, viable moves essentially include the 19 max moves, Substitute, and some niche set up options. This radical degradation in the number of viable moves will lead to overcentralization because without their movepools to set them apart, many previously niche Pokemon will be entirely outclassed by Pokemon with better stats, abilities, and typings. In essence, dynamax decreases the number of available niches in the metagame.

My first claim is hardly based on metrics or experience, it's one that's simply true. Denying that the interaction between Substitute and dynamax isn't relevant is lunacy. While one may blame Substitute instead of dynamax here, banning Sub will not help with my second quip, and might actually exaggerate it. You're correct in saying that my second claim is currently based in experience rather than evidence, but it seems at least probable that dynamax leads to overcentralization, and at this point in the gen, that's enough. Just like banning the cover legendaries, we should make the best metagame that we're capable of to start the generation even if that involves some uncertainty. I'm all for having a suspect to bring dynamax back later, but in the mean time we shouldn't have the meta developing for too long in a direction that's going to be voided by a game-changing ban once the stats are clear.

As I touched on above, I simply believe that we have enough reason to damage the "purity" of 1v1 in order to make it "better." The state of the metagame right now is simply awful (opinion!) and it's clear to me that the source of this awfulness is dynamax.

3. Suspect tests and discussions are a means to evaluating why the suspected element was or should be removed.

With the understanding set forth by point 2 that only something egregiously harmful to the metagame deserves to be removed, the task of demonstrating those egregious characteristics falls to the side attempting to instigate change within the metagame.

Demonstrating something as an element that deserves to be banned is not simply something that can be done by show of support when someone makes a post that you agree with, but rather with rigid evidence that a conclusion can be drawn from.

The burden of proof does fall upon the pro-ban side and while I would agree with you later in the gen, I disagree with you at this point in the gen. We don't need rigid evidence, we need to make the meta as good as possible as quickly as possible. I think that it's also important that we don't see a dynamax ban this early in the gen as a permanent event considering that we'd hopefully give dynamax a suspect eventually.

The uncompetitive and unhealthy elements that I think a dynamax ban would reduce are the omnipresence of genuine 50/50s and overcentralization. Is that clear-cut enough? While we don't know that a metagame without dynamax would be better, I'm also unconvinced that the past happened. Uncertainty is unavoidable and focusing too much on it, especially this early in the gen, simply leads to inaction.

The problems with dynamax are that it introduces 50/50s to too many matchups and that it results in overcentralization. I simply fail to see how either of these things (especially the prior) must result in an individually suspect-worthy Pokemon.

In a vacuum, Substitute-dynamax 50/50s are genuine 50/50s and you're unable to control whether or not your opponent brings Substitute. Putting these together removes skill from the hands on the player and replaces it with pseudo-RNG. My issue with overcentralization does not impede skill.

Ultimately, Dynamax is a generation-defining feature of the Sword and Shield metagame, much like Stealth Rock was for Diamond and Pearl, Hidden Abilities for Black and White, Mega Evolution for X and Y, and so forth. Removing it would effectively be forfeiting the identity as a Gen 8 metagame and molding it into an OM of itself, rather than abiding by the standards set in place by the new generation.

While there is something to be said about purity and the loss of identity, the state of the meta is stale and does not reward skill to the extent that it could. I think I speak for most of 1v1 when I say that I'd rather play an interesting metagame without Game Freak's latest gimmick than what we have now.

I don't know why you think this is an argument to why dynamax should stay. Every ban in a tier is "removing part of what makes a pokemon a pokemon." Of course you can't compare an entire mechanic to simple items and abilities as you say but I don't think this is half of a reason to why we should keep dmax.

6. Discerning something as a problem means that there has to be a problem in the metagame.

If Dynamax were truly the source of the metagame being broken, uncompetitive, or unhealthy, then there already should have been suspect-worthy pokemon that got to where they were because of their abuse of Dynamax.

Not only do there need to be Pokemon in general that are bannable solely because of their abuse of Dynamax, just about every pokemon needs to be capable of sweeping, haxing, or otherwise creating an unfavorable scenario for a large majority of opponents, or at least large enough a group to be deemed as overcentralizing.

yea but the points are literally true though, dynamaxing doubles your hp. Every fucking mon has the same potential to do it with dynamax with the only barrier being stats and movepool. Dynamax is the source of everything that is blatantly centralizing and which creates a boring metagame

4. The point of suspect tests and bans is ultimately to lower the number of broken, uncompetitive, and/or unhealthy elements present within the metagame.

With a hypothetical Dynamax suspect, it'd be hard to discern qualities that warrant a clear need for suspect, as the main thing we'd be seeing is that the metagame is clearly different without it. Not more balanced, but different. There is no certainty that a no-dynamax metagame would even have less broken aspects than the one we have now. Everything that even comes close to being broken in this meta turns out to be bugged, on account of ingame mechanics functioning differently from how they're implemented on PS.

this is true, you want a meta to be as close to the cartridge while being balanced, on the other hand I have no idea why you're linking threads from 11 years ago which definitely did not follow the tiering policy that we do today.
tl;dr I basically said everything mace said but more half assed.
Dynamax forces too many things to be ran on every set (substitute), the mechanic of dynamaxing is just unbalanced in a fast paced metagame such as 1v1 where it causes mons that should not tank a hit to tank a hit (exca, durant). If it is blatantly unbalanced, it's bannable no matter how far from the main game it goes. The argument that "dynamax shouldn't be banned because it's the main mechanic of ss" is plainly wrong and we've seen metas such as LC already pull the banhammer. I don't see any reason to why we should keep dynamax any longer Quote its time zz

also if ur a baller pass me teams so that I can ladder inside this cancer

First, they have already made dynamax move affects go through substitutes like a max wyrmwind can lower the opponents attack even through a sub. They have also made subs dissapear when you dynamax. Both of these lower the 50/50 matchups(which you kept mentioning) alot.

That's for the dynamax user, makes it slightly better but doesn't fix shit.

The larger issue with dynamax isn't the abusers, it's the stale gameplay and 50/50s. Having a 19 move metagame is boring and overcentralizing to simply the best stated pokemon. Status moves are barely relevant, and when they are - like in the case of Corsola-G - they counterplay is limitted by the mechanic itself and creates more 50/50s with Dynamax providing offensive capabilities to them with Taunt not even being a reliable check. GMax Alcremie is problematic, but that's not the reason Dynamax should be banned - even if the bug gets fixed the mechanic itself is still at fault.

My opinion is but a simple one which has probably already been stated. Each new generation of Pokemon brought us something different. To ban Dynamax for Sword/Shield would be akin to banning Z-Moves in Sun/Moon, or Mega Evolutions in X/Y. I see a lot of people claiming that battles become 50/50 or that it's hard to kill bulky offense, but that at it's core is what Game Freak set as the combat system for the entire game, even if people don't like it (I myself didn't like Z-Moves, but wasn't campaigning to get them removed.) If Dynamax was a one-off to fight Eternatus then I would be more inclined to remove it. However, since Dynamax is ingrained in the gym battles, the trainer battles, the Raids, and the in game battles, removing it would essentially remove the soul of the Pokemon Sword and Shield games.

u rly thought

No. Not at all.
Mega Evolutions: A select amount of Pokemon, usually not as good before it had the mega before, only have access to it.
Z Moves: You need to give up an item slot to use it.
Dynamax: Every Pokemon gets it, and it lasts for 3 turns, NOT akin to Z moves which are 1-turn moves and mega evolutions which last the whole game.

But again, I'm not debating whether something is given up to make it balanced. Mega Evolutions made X/Y, just like Z-Moves made Sun/Moon. It's a valid point that needs to be made that you shouldn't remove thefeature implemented in the new game because you don't like what it's done to the meta.

u rly thought

But again, I'm not debating whether something is given up to make it balanced. Mega Evolutions made X/Y, just like Z-Moves made Sun/Moon. It's a valid point that needs to be made that you shouldn't remove thefeature implemented in the new game because you don't like what it's done to the meta.

That still isn't valid
Just because something MADE a generation, doesn't push away that in the eyes of some it is conceived as broken, and shifting the metagame in a way that makes about 5 Pokemon tops viable. We are looking for balance, not keeping the flagship features of a generation just because.

That still isn't valid
Just because something MADE a generation, doesn't push away that in the eyes of some it is conceived as broken, and shifting the metagame in a way that makes about 5 Pokemon tops viable. We are looking for balance, not keeping the flagship features of a generation just because.

But that right there is an empty statement. You're making that claim with no actual statistical proof that there will be a mon abusing this. Would it be hard to balance? Sure, but it doesn't mean it's not worth a shot to keep Sw/Sh as intended.

Pokemon's main competitive direction/intent is towards VGC, not even singles battling.
Dynamax is much more balanced in those settings since two pokemon can aid in killing it.
I won't dabble too deep into this, but this is a pokemon simulator.
Dynamax is hitting every single metagame, but 1v1 is in my opinion the most affected, since the number of turns in a game is drastically reduced and it limits different playstyles that can be afforded to run in OU because of the number of pokemon.

We're building different metagames with different key components, the game's "intension" isn't a factor to disregard the competitive aspect of the 1v1 metagame.

I COULD BE BANNED!

We play to the best of our ability with the mechanics given to us on the cartridge. We keep the game as intended in one way: we don't change the code. We don't set the cover legendaries to 600 BST to make them "balanced," of course.

The intents of the developers only go insofar as the mechanics that are programmed. For elements that can be turned on/off, we rely on gentleman's rules. Reveal an OHKO move? You automatically lose, although nothing in the actual game is preventing you from doing that.

But that right there is an empty statement. You're making that claim with no actual statistical proof that there will be a mon abusing this. Would it be hard to balance? Sure, but it doesn't mean it's not worth a shot to keep Sw/Sh as intended.

But again, I'm not debating whether something is given up to make it balanced. Mega Evolutions made X/Y, just like Z-Moves made Sun/Moon. It's a valid point that needs to be made that you shouldn't remove thefeature implemented in the new game because you don't like what it's done to the meta.

It's not just an "I don't like it"; it's a "it's so good relative to other mechanics that it makes skillful play irrelevant." Something special? Also takes away the skill component? We pull out the banhammer.

My opinion is but a simple one which has probably already been stated. Each new generation of Pokemon brought us something different. To ban Dynamax for Sword/Shield would be akin to banning Z-Moves in Sun/Moon, or Mega Evolutions in X/Y. I see a lot of people claiming that battles become 50/50 or that it's hard to kill bulky offense, but that at it's core is what Game Freak set as the combat system for the entire game, even if people don't like it (I myself didn't like Z-Moves, but wasn't campaigning to get them removed.) If Dynamax was a one-off to fight Eternatus then I would be more inclined to remove it. However, since Dynamax is ingrained in the gym battles, the trainer battles, the Raids, and the in game battles, removing it would essentially remove the soul of the Pokemon Sword and Shield games.

I'm expecting a much bulkier metagame overall, strong usage of stat boosts+body press/stored power as well.
Mew is also gonna be a threat, essentially insta winning as long as it lives a hit.
(ez trevenant fodder)
but taunt is inevitably gonna see usage again, so yeah

Bewear is criminally underrated in this metagame. 120 HP and 80 Defense can pull through many top-tier threats like Excadrill, Choice Scarf Haxorus, Durant, and physical Dragapult. Though 60 Special Defense isn't very good on its own, its HP helps it take a few special threats, specifically this spread allows Bewear to beat Choice Specs Dragapult.

Moves:

Giga Impact is Bewear's go-to move, hitting almost every type other than Rock-, Steel-, Ghost- for neutral damage, though having the setback of recharging every other turn.

Close Combat beats the pesky Rock- and Steel-types like Tyranitar and Excadrill, that Giga Impact is resisted by.

Earthquake has a chance versus some Fire-types, if they can't KO Bewear even with Fluffy.

Darkest Lariat beats Dragapult more effectively.

Set Details:

248 HP and 8 Defense allow Bewear to take a Superpower from an Adamant Choice Scarf Haxorus, while also pulling through threats like Excadrill and Durant.

248 HP and 128 Special Defense along with a nature allows Bewear to tank a Fire Blast from Choice Specs Dragapult, and KO back with Darkest Lariat subsequently.

120 Attack and an Adamant nature is dumped there to beat Durant all of the time with Close Combat. (120+ Atk Choice Band Bewear Close Combat vs. 0 HP / 0 Def Durant: 258-304 (100.3 - 118.2%) -- guaranteed OHKO)

4 Speed is to outspeed other uninvested Bewear.

Fluffy is Bewear's flagship ability, though the hinderance of being hit 2x from Fire-types is matchup-breaking in some cases.

Choice Band gives Bewear more power, allowing it to beat Durant, along other Pokemon.

Notable Moves:

Star (*) means that it just got it this generation.

Giga Impact

Earthquake

Reversal

Shadow Claw

Dragon Claw

Drain Punch

Ice Punch

Iron Head

Zen Headbutt

Endure

Swords Dance

Darkest Lariat (*)

Close Combat (*)

Other Options:

Wrath of Alakazam brought up an Endure + Swords Dance + Custap Berry set, I think, if it ever gets released it might be good.

Doing a mini-analysis on Bewear, putting this here because not many people know about this Pokemon and it's not really fleshed out enough for me to feel comfortable to put in the 1v1 Pokemon Megathread.

Bewear is criminally underrated in this metagame. 120 HP and 80 Defense can pull through many top-tier threats like Excadrill, Choice Scarf Haxorus, Durant, and physical Dragapult. Though 60 Special Defense isn't very good on its own, its HP helps it take a few special threats, specifically this spread allows Bewear to beat Choice Specs Dragapult.

Moves:

Giga Impact is Bewear's go-to move, hitting almost every type other than Rock-, Steel-, Ghost- for neutral damage, though having the setback of recharging every other turn.

Close Combat beats the pesky Rock- and Steel-types like Tyranitar and Excadrill, that Giga Impact is resisted by.

Earthquake has a chance versus some Fire-types, if they can't KO Bewear even with Fluffy.

Darkest Lariat beats Dragapult more effectively.

Set Details:

248 HP and 8 Defense allow Bewear to take a Superpower from an Adamant Choice Scarf Haxorus, while also pulling through threats like Excadrill and Durant.

248 HP and 60 Special Defense along with a Careful nature allows Bewear to tank a Fire Blast from Choice Specs Dragapult, and KO back with Darkest Lariat subsequently.

188 Attack is dumped there to beat Durant 3/4ths of the time with Close Combat.

4 Speed is to outspeed other uninvested Bewear.

Fluffy is Bewear's flagship ability, though the hinderance of being hit 2x from Fire-types is matchup-breaking in some cases.

Choice Band gives Bewear more power, allowing it to beat Durant, along other Pokemon.

Notable Moves:

Star (*) means that it just got it this generation.

Giga Impact

Earthquake

Reversal

Shadow Claw

Dragon Claw

Drain Punch

Ice Punch

Iron Head

Zen Headbutt

Endure

Swords Dance

Darkest Lariat (*)

Close Combat (*)

Other Options:

Wrath of Alakazam brought up an Endure + Swords Dance + Custap Berry set, I think, if it ever gets released it might be good.

I already posted this in one place but it's probably the best thing I've come up with so far. It is no longer as great a lure as I had thought because Mega Mawile is now nonexistent, but it still fulfills the unique role of a physical wall that can actually do solid damage as an attacker. It inexplicably takes on things like Azumarill and Jirachi. Even stuff that bypasses Fluffy like Kyurem-Black and Mega Charizard X can lose. EVs allow you to avoid a 2HKO from unboosted Mega Gyarados, which also bypasses Fluffy and does a slightly better job. Thunder Punch is probably superior but if your team can handle Water-types and not Dragonite for some reason, switch it around to the other EV spread as well.

Imprison prevents opposing mons from using any moves you share with it. In this case, Mew uses Imprison first turn then Transform which means since you share all attacks with your opponent and they will Struggle to death. Imprison isn't overridden by Transform and Imprison comes into effect soon as Transform does meaning as soon as Mew transforms the opponent can't attack.

Imprison+Transform Mew is a pretty solid mon that beats a majority of mons slower than it. If the opposing mon fails to OHKO, put you in range for Struggle, or Taunt it loses. Mew also has the ability to change set to deal with usual counters. Overheat deals with Scarf Darm-Galar which usually beats Mew and Shadow Ball is for special Aegislash, but really all you need is Imprison+Transform and other two slots can be whatever to suit your needs.

Iron Defense buffs defense prevents many 2HKOs and allows Corsola-Galar to Strength Sap and get its health back then kill with Night Shade.

Corsola-Galar checks a large portion of physical attackers, not very many special attackers. It is a nice check to many prevalent mons such as Darm-Galar, Dracovish, Dracovolt, Crustle, Excadrill, and other physical mons. Cursed Body allows you to beat choiced mons if you can't otherwise, however it is unreliable. Light Screen allows you to cheese some victories against special attackers. Overall, a good mon if your team stuggles with any of the mentioned physical nukes. (Plan to add calcs/replays later)